Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freej cartoon

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. W.marsh 16:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freej cartoon

Freej cartoon (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Unnotable cartoon, little content in the article. Gekedo 09:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No assertion of notability. yandman 09:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: it's a bad article, but a notable subject. It is an animated cartoon series of fifteen episodes, that aired on Dubai TV: see the website of the cartoon (I know, not an independent source)[1], but also the KuwaitTimes[2], the announcement on Oman3d[3] (no idea if this is a reliable source), Gulfnews[4], and to top it all off ... Variety[5]. As with the Billoo AfD, also today: please do a little Google check (or whatever search engine you prefer) before nominating something for AfD. I'm often called a deletionist, but there are plenty of articles on non notable subjects waiting to be deleted, so there's no need to get rid of bad articles abouot good subjects: just tag them with cleanup, expand, ... Fram 09:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (Keep, per Fram's absolutely excellent work!) Is Wikipedia the go-to site for bad articles about notable subjects? Is it the place people should go to when they are searching for information on a topic just to be terribly disappointed when they clicked on the page, finding nothing informative and nothing reliable? No, no no, and again I say NO. All we have here is an apparently notable subject, very little information, and no citations whatsoever in the article. That means that the creator of this article really only had enough to make an entry on WP:RA. Maybe someone would like to userfy this article and work on it for a while and then re-post. If no one's willing to make that type of commitment to this article, there's no justification for keeping it around. OfficeGirl 15:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment While I understand your position, it is not in line with the reasons for deletion as listed in the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. This is an example of "Problem articles where deletion may not be needed". I have shown that a good article can be written about the subject. If you are so disappointed with it in its current state, why don't you try to improve it? I can't help but notice that you don't seem to have made any article edits since October 20 (i.e. 3 days after you started editing), but have since made more than 100 edits in AfD and user space. I'm all for deleting articles that with the currently available sources can not be saved (you can check my track record if you want to), but at the same time we are here to build an encyclopedia, not only to discuss it. Fram 15:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what you are saying, Fram. But we are not even presented with an article that could reasonably be called a stub here-- which in this case would be (1)the name of the article, (2)at least one sentence that explains what it is and why it is important, and (3)at least one reference source that shows the sentence is verifiable. Yandaman's quote about putting on a bathrobe before you walk out the door is very apt. Wikipedia's help information explaining to newcomers what they should do if they want to create a new article warns everyone that they should do their research and get the article in good condition before posting it, because a sub-standard article may well be deleted before you get time to come back and make improvements. Whenever someone improves an article to at least stub quality and there is some indication that someone actually will continue improving an article I have always changed my vote to "keep." (check my track record, too) I have not suggested that we completely obliterate any efforts to have an article about Freej cartoon, and in fact I have suggested options for keeping alive the hope for a good article on this subject without needlessly cluttering Wikipedia with substandard material. OfficeGirl 18:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I think that this quote sums it up: [6] yandman 15:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, move to Freej and cleanup per Yandman. Kavadi carrier 16:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - sourced and verifiable. Poor writing is an opportunity for improvement, not a reason for deletion. -- Whpq 17:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Are we dealing merely with poor writing here? Or are we dealing with the scribblings of a child-- say junior high school aged-- who decided to fiddle around with Wikipedia features briefly and then disappeared? What's on the article page is something that should have been done in the sandbox, not in a regular article page. Do we really want to reward that behavior? If there were someone ready, willing and able to do work on the article then I'd agree with "keep." But it appears that there is no one, not even among the "keep" voters who has lifted a finger to make it into at least a stub. OfficeGirl 00:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Appears to be a genuine cartoon magazine. The article needs cleaned up, wiki'd, categorised, and sources added. scope_creep 21:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It needs re-writing but it's a real cartoon series shown on a real world broadcast network. Robovski 00:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I have rewritten it now, I hope the current stub is acceptable (though far from perfect of course). Fram 08:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Good work! I think that we can close this debate. Anyone object to the new version? yandman 08:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Viva editor. No objections there =)Gekedo 11:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

looks like a strong consensus for a speedy keep thanks to Fram. How about it? OfficeGirl 15:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No Objection here either - good work, thanks for taking the time. Robovski 22:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.